This discussion is closed.
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
But that is just it unless you have a great quality CD player the digital sound is just too harsh for me. Try playing a live album on vynil and the experience is truely amazing, on CD it is much harder to achieve this as the frequency rate is only 44.1Khz where as vynil is unlimited.

Vinyl dosn't dosn't deteriate over the time, as longs as you look after the LPs you are fine, the only thing you need to is replace the stylus every so often.

There are some good CD players out there but they cost well in exess of £500 where as you can buy a great sounding turntable for £300.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by amazingtrade)
But that is just it unless you have a great quality CD player the digital sound is just too harsh for me. Try playing a live album on vynil and the experience is truely amazing, on CD it is much harder to achieve this as the frequency rate is only 44.1Khz where as vynil is unlimited.
it is limited (in a sense) to the size of the vinil molecules.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by elpaw)
it is limited (in a sense) to the size of the vinil molecules.
But that is still a lot higher than 44.1khz. The biggest mistake they made with CD was to limit the frequency. SACD is an improvment (96Khz) but there is very limited stuff out on this format. Mindisc is just crap full stop. a good chrome cassete recorded on a good HIFI machine easiy shames minidisc.

MP3 sounds ok if it is ripped correctly and at a high data rate, most the stuff you download from the net is poor 128kbps which is not high enough.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by amazingtrade)
The biggest mistake they made with CD was to limit the frequency.
of course they had to limit the frequency. otherwise all you would get a tiny fraction of the time. for example at 44.1 KHz you can get 80min on a cd, at 441KHz you would only get 8 min

anyway, the highest the ear can sense is around 22KHz so all those extra frequencies would never add any direct aural quality to the music.
0
kikzen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by amazingtrade)
But that is still a lot higher than 44.1khz. The biggest mistake they made with CD was to limit the frequency. SACD is an improvment (96Khz) but there is very limited stuff out on this format. Mindisc is just crap full stop. a good chrome cassete recorded on a good HIFI machine easiy shames minidisc.

MP3 sounds ok if it is ripped correctly and at a high data rate, most the stuff you download from the net is poor 128kbps which is not high enough.
really tho can you hear these minute differences? and if you own the cd you can rip at much higher frequencies than that. most of my music is 128/192kbps and its fine!

and i love my ipod but the battery does suck!
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Try playing a live album on vynil and the experience is truely amazing, on CD it is much harder to achieve this as the frequency rate is only 44.1Khz where as vynil is unlimited.
true, CD has a limited sample rate. That this is noticeable is debatable. Regardless, you made the statement earlier that vinyl sounds better than digital - a digital representation of the music can be as accurate as you want it to be - there is simply no way that vinyl can sound simply better than digital.
0
wiffmaster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
All a conspiracy! Just like the Sky digiboxes were at first, when the chip inside them was programmed to break after....13 months :rolleyes: . Just after warrenty has expired.
0
....
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
Audiophiles are full of crap imo
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by elpaw)
of course they had to limit the frequency. otherwise all you would get a tiny fraction of the time. for example at 44.1 KHz you can get 80min on a cd, at 441KHz you would only get 8 min

anyway, the highest the ear can sense is around 22KHz so all those extra frequencies would never add any direct aural quality to the music.
the sample rate - (ie 44.1kHz for a cd) has nothing to do with frequencies the ear can hear. It is simply the number of times a second that the audio is sampled!!

You are getting confused with frequency response (which in the case of a CD is 5 to 20 Khz) which is the range of sound frequencies the medium is ultimately able to reproduce (ofcourse a decent HiFi is required to take advantage of the entire band).
And I'm not entirely sure that the ear cannot detect frequencies higher than 22Khz --- the DVD Audio specification allows a upper frequency response of around 100 Khz. This seems rather pointless if the ear really can't detect anything above 22 Khz.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by amexblack)
the sample rate - (ie 44.1kHz for a cd) has nothing to do with frequencies the ear can hear. It is simply the number of times a second that the audio is sampled!!
it does, because the smaple rate has to be at least twice as large as the highest frequency the ear can detect. otherwise you will get spurious low frequencies.
0
Joey_Johns
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by amexblack)
the sample rate - (ie 44.1kHz for a cd) has nothing to do with frequencies the ear can hear. It is simply the number of times a second that the audio is sampled!!

You are getting confused with frequency response (which in the case of a CD is 5 to 20 Khz) which is the range of sound frequencies the medium is ultimately able to reproduce (ofcourse a decent HiFi is required to take advantage of the entire band).
And I'm not entirely sure that the ear cannot detect frequencies higher than 22Khz --- the DVD Audio specification allows a upper frequency response of around 100 Khz. This seems rather pointless if the ear really can't detect anything above 22 Khz.
I certainly know of one Elton John record which sounds tonnes better on vynil. 17-11-70. The producer Gus Dudgeon made an absolute pigs ear of the live recording, an absoltue crime. So sometimes vynil can sound better than cd.
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by elpaw)
it does, because the smaple rate has to be at least twice as large as the highest frequency the ear can detect. otherwise you will get spurious low frequencies.
yes, this is obvious - AS physics :P You misunderstood me.

Let me make myself clear :

You said "the highest the ear can sense is around 22KHz so all those extra frequencies would never add any direct aural quality to the music." in response to something said about the CD's sample rate being limited to 44.1 kHz. But the sample rate has nothing to do with the actual frequencies of the sound (although, as you correctly point out - the sample rate has to be at least twice as large as the highest frequency). So the comment about the inability of the ear to hear high frequencies is irrelevant given it was a response to posts about sampling rates!
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
The 44.1Khz is the datarate in which the binary bits are read from the CD, it has nothing to with the frequency the human ear can hear.

As for Elton John the CDs were remastered so they sound good on mini systems, if you put a Elton John CD into a HIFI sytem its very bright and harsh on the ears, the vinyl versions are much warmer because party because they don't have the silly digital remastering and because vinyl is warmer.

Digital music can sound good, DAT for example beats the pants of Vinyl but then it has an extremly high sample rate and is well out of the hands of the average domsetic person hence the reason it never took off.

The problem with cheaper CD players is jitter, the DACs clock rate is not always exact due to cheap parts and you can sometimes hear this as harshness. The only way to get the DACs clock to be more less exact is to have very expensive transformers and a clean mains supply.

CD still sounds good but in my experience for sound per sound vinyl has the lead simply because all its doing is transfering vibrations. With digital has to process information and some of the original sound is lost in this process.

A fine example is Joy Divsion's She's Lost Control take two identical versions on CD the other on Vinyl the Vinyl version has so much more bass punch it just sounds more convincing to me.

CD has the edge on conveince and this is the reason it has taken off so much, other than the fact Sony almost bribed recording companies into limiting their vinyl releases in the early 1990's hence forcing people to buy CD players.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by amexblack)
yes, this is obvious - AS physics :P You misunderstood me.

Let me make myself clear :

You said "the highest the ear can sense is around 22KHz so all those extra frequencies would never add any direct aural quality to the music." in response to something said about the CD's sample rate being limited to 44.1 kHz. But the sample rate has nothing to do with the actual frequencies of the sound (although, as you correctly point out - the sample rate has to be at least twice as large as the highest frequency). So the comment about the inability of the ear to hear high frequencies is irrelevant given it was a response to posts about sampling rates!
but any extra frequencies that are resolved with the datarate will still be undetectable. making the sample rate higher would just be redundant.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by elpaw)
but any extra frequencies that are resolved with the datarate will still be undetectable. making the sample rate higher would just be redundant.
No because you can hear the extra detail there. When digital recordings are made on DAT they are recorded at 96 or 92Khz (can't remember which one) when they are reduced dramatically for CD so they can fit more songs on the CD.

96Khz is too high, we would not be able to hear that, but a lot of scientists say that 44.1Khz is not enough to make the sound truly as good as the original.
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
geez, admit you were wrong!!!

(Original post by elpaw)
but any extra frequencies that are resolved with the datarate will still be undetectable.

Yes, this is true - the frequency response of a CD may be unnecessarily high. But for the 3rd time, this has nothing to do with sampling rates!!!!
0
Tribi18
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
Is the
Philips Jukebox MP3 HDD100 any good?? I might get one. Its much much cheaper £177 Inc. VAT so i might get that instead of the apple ipod??
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by amexblack)
geez, admit you were wrong!!!




Yes, this is true - the frequency response of a CD may be unnecessarily high. But for the 3rd time, this has nothing to do with sampling rates!!!!
so what does the sampling rate help?
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by Tribi18)
Is the
Philips Jukebox MP3 HDD100 any good?? I might get one. Its much much cheaper £177 Inc. VAT so i might get that instead of the apple ipod??
If 15GB is sufficient and you want something that looks butt ugly, get it in terms of sound quality, it is probably as good as the ipod - certainly good enough for most people. I'm a bit of an apple fanboy -- I have apple powerbooks, cinema displays and ipods :P I realise there are probably cheaper, comparable alternatives - but they all lack apple's style. My PC is a P4 though.
0
amexblack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by elpaw)
so what does the sampling rate help?
combined with sample size, it is the accuracy of the recording.

CD Audio contains sound that has been sampled 44.1 thousand times a second, with a sample size of 16 bits.

It is similar to picture quality -- an image can contain a certain number of pixels (ie the sample rate with audio) each of which has its colour described by a certain number of bits, such as 16 bit colour, or 32 bit colour, (ie the sample size with audio).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (180)
38.22%
Take autumn exams (145)
30.79%
Look for a job (16)
3.4%
Consider an apprenticeship (21)
4.46%
Take a year out (81)
17.2%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (28)
5.94%

Watched Threads

View All